|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Yeah..... posted by Chris Garrett on April 12, 2003 at 17:42:53:
I honestly believe that the added value of any technology should be self evident for the end user even at a low price point (provided it has reached mass market production and prices). A DVD player brings a lot more than VHS and it's self evident to any consumer, even the cheapest ones.. so does DVD-A (and for the same reasons).There have been several posts on the HRH saying that even a $200 Sony player can sound better than a much more expensive CD player, and most recently, better than the Marantz DV-8300. So maybe the same is true for SACD...
Anyway, give me $1,500 MCH SACD system, and a $1,500 MCH DVD-A system, and any user will be able to appreciate the additional features of a DVD-A, whereas he will have to go into very specific sonic comparisons to make a judgement on SACD.
Best
Follow Ups:
but I've heard too many nice CDPs on the same system over many hours to know that they don't sound the same and that they're all running as intended, so what's what?I have some low budget stuff, so I think that I can speak to how it sounds and there are tangible reasons for it NOT to sound as nice as some of the better rendered machines.
As far as the extras go with DVDA, can't argue with you there as SACD hasn't included any visuals on their discs.
"I honestly believe that the added value of any technology should be self evident for the end user even at a low price point (provided it has reached mass market production and prices)."
Since both formats are MUSIC discs and since a lot 'what's better and what's not' is subjective and since critical listening is a learned trait, I don't know if this holds true in audio. Many people, who have been tested relative to sound reproduction answer when questioned, that things that sound louder are perceived to sound BETTER to their ears and we both know that's not the case.
It's like giving different bottles of fine French wines to people who are used to an occassional glass of Gallo and asking them to differentiate between the samples telling us what they tasted in each. We'd probably get "it tastes fruitier than the next, or is less sour on the tongue." There's no vocabulary built up and in the context of professional wine tasting, the opinions mean very little. With stereos and the masses, if it plays louder and goes thump, thump, thump, then it'll probably gets the thumbs up.
My point with Kuma was that she bought a crappy Sony SACD player and ran it within a very nice system and felt that SACD lacked lower level dynamics and didn't cut the mustard, in general, against DVDA. I would be remiss if I judged DVDA solely on the $428 Denon 1600 DVDV/DVDA player that I'm using right now, as it wouldn't be fair. At a list price of $550, it might at best contain $50-$75 worth of parts.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dvda/messages/3940.htm*My point with Kuma was that she bought a crappy Sony SACD player and ran it within a very nice system and felt that SACD lacked lower level dynamics and didn't cut the mustard, in general, against DVDA.*
I wouldn't do that, Chris. My impression for SACD remains as i stated even with stock sony SCD-1 and Accuphase two box player ( DV-85 gets bit better actually )
Just like anything else, I am probably reacting more to their *house sound* than the format difference, that's possible. Cuz, whether NS500 or SCD-1, their basic characteristics on SACD playback sorta stayed in the same neighborhood. that's why i'm curious to hear Krell's SACD player. As far as their bass goes, what i meant by bass *dynamics* is that not how much it goes down, it's about how they deliver.
I've given up on SACD for time being because of the lack of software titles I am interested in.
BTW, DVD-A player/processor used were Meridian 568.2/598 and 800v3./861
Aren't they sort of the same ball park as sony scd-1 or Accuphase? no?
Actually, both Accuphase units convert the DSD bitstream to PCM, so you're really not hearing DSD in its native resolution, unless you've got SACDs that are derived from PCM masters (which many are) in which case, you come full circle.The Meridian 8xx Series is a $30k+ combo at the top of the DVDA chain and the 5xx series, is what? 1/2-2/3s the price, making it way above the Sony SCD-1, the Linderman, the Accuphase DP-85, the Marantz SA-1, et. al. The 8xx Series would be more more closely compared to the dCS Verdi/Elgar+/Purcell combo (IMO,) which DOES NOT convert the DSD bitstream to PCM.
Anyway, my comment stands on the crappy DVDV/SACD player. Whether you think it has a house sound or not. As I said relative to software choices, I can't argue with you there.
Take care and enjoy those Meridan combos!
SACD tends to a warm, fuzzy and soft sonic character that is common across players. so if you've looking for a dynamic, fast response with lots of slam i can understand why you might be disappointed and why DVD-A would sound better.DVD-A seems to have a crispness and an "edge" that i really enjoy, even though that sharp edge will cut ya if you are not careful.
in the end though it's horses for courses. i personally prefer the sacd sound although Rock really rocks on DVD-A, especially on my inexpensive rp82 which is all glam and edge and no detail.
and granted, my system is no where near SOTA and has its deficiencies, but I'm at about 135 SACDs, many being rock n roll and as many of the electronic ones as I can find, with their synthetic bass, plus the forty, or so, Jazz titles and the system is anything but slow and anything but soft in the lower octaves.However, I have been using a SS amp for the better part of 15 months and I could see where mismatched tube amps/speakers might slow things down. As far as the treble goes, it is smoother than PCM, but not necessarily better than the few DVDAs that I have. Since I don't have any duplicates and since I don't have a universal player to play both of them back on, it's tough to do a direct comparison.
Anyway, not to nit-pick...
and thought DVD-A had a better chance of getting there
lot easier than SACD playback.
that *edge* you are talking is necessary to keep a tune going.Most gear does it by bumping the frequency in the region and in some
entry level sources, they truncate the decay and ends up becoming tiresome in a long run.
A two channel DVD-A play back i have heard actually infused better treble decay and maintained a treble civility than a redbook playback on the same player. ( this *effect* is essentialy the same on SACD ). But the biggest surprise was that it had a sensibly controlled power downstream. ( this is where SACD gets overly civilisd for my taste, I think )There is something to be said about ease, flow and lack of strain in music. I can certainly appreciate those characteristics. It's a slipery balance not to go totally flacid, that's for sure.
you don't make the same points when people cut down DVD-A on the basis of a few titles run on a cheap player, when that happens on the HRH... It's a binary thing. Sometimes people feel they have to dislike DVD-A to like SACD, or they feel compelled to say it, whatever the reason.Do you want us to send you a comment everytime that happens? Probably not, or you wouldn't be able to do anything else.
Fair's fair, you should let people express that they like DVD-A better just like it's fair to let it happen on the HRH
Best
Eric
PS: I see your point... but we don't necessarily have the same budgets so my idea of high-end is probably your idea of midfi.
I've never objected to somebody coming over from one board to the other, to debate the merits of either format. I think that when a person continualy puts forth the same message solely as a provacation, it's time to switch messages and I'll let them know. I can't help it if people feel that DSD is more appealing than any PCM played back on the redbook machines that they've listened to in the past."Fair's fair, you should let people express that they like DVD-A better just like it's fair to let it happen on the HRH"
As far as you equating 'going unchallenged to me being fair' I don't think that that argument holds water. This is a privately owned BBS open to anyone who cares to behave and as such, people have the right to voice their own opinion even if it's in opposition. Ad nauseam replies aren't welcome and only serve to inflame and bore, as anybody who's read Rich's posts, can attest.
As far as crappy SACD players go, personally, anybody that makes a comment on perceived sound quality regarding a component, after a store audition, no audition or even a brief in home audition, is nuts, IMO. Hell, when I go over to my two buddies' places and audition new components, were there listening intently for hours at a stretch and even that's not enough.
'Billy Bob heard it in a system that he's listened to twice and he thinks it sucks' doesn't cut it in my book.
When the SACDPs first hit the market, the three machines were $3500, $5000 and $7500 and while not perfect, they were praised as being pretty decent both in terms of redbook and SACD. Many of us knew that the cheaper models were coming and we wondered? Would a $200 SACD player approach a rather nicely implemented CDP? Would there even be much of a difference between DSD and CD on one of these cheap players with their crappy analogue output sections and power supplies? Unless one went with the better SACDPs out there, would it be worthwhile for people to even experiment with DSD?
What followed was a flood of inmates who were mostly into HT, but who thought that even a $1500 SACD player was worth the gamble so they bought them. Many of these people have (had) little experience with HiFi at its current level and hence, didn't have the requisite vocabulary to compare the lessor models to whatever. Their $175 Sony 775, Philips 1000 or Marantz 963 were the greatest sounding units on the planet. People who have taken the time to hunt out different machines, trying them in their own systems for stretches of time, kind of chuckled. We've tried not to belittle them, but to say that we're taking those comments with the token grain of salt would be an understatement of epic proportions. Life goes on, however.
The problem with DVDA hardware is that there's a paucity of higher end models and those that are up there, like the Meridians, Denons, the Luxman and I guess the TEAC (?) are all quite rare and expensive and people don't seem to be buying them. The only two that I know of, are John Kotches and John C, who have reviewed and owned Meridian stuff, respectively and a couple of people running the $1200 & $3400 Denons. I can probably name 200 people who have high end SACD players.
I have two machines covering both formats, but one machine is 1/10th the price of the other and even if you believe that this stuff is all over-priced by a factor of two or three, the Sony is just a better built machine using better parts (chuckle, chuckle) than the Denon, so how can I really give a solid opinion on the formats relative to one another, even having the same material on both?
I don't say one is better than the other, I say that for me, SACD is a better format because it's simplier, sounds very nice most of the time and can more often than not, be played back on CDPs in other parts of the house. When you have a nice turntable, you realize that the "perfect sound forever" sales pitch for CD is a joke. Some people hold that MLP is guilty by association and they don't want anything to do with it, but I guess that it's just their loss?
Don't jump on your high horses!Here's some feedback
1) I know you don't censor people, I was just curious why you were so prompt in questioning someone coming to the Audiobahn (the right place for that) and saying that she prefers the sound of DVD-A... and likes the software better. I think Kuma answered your points.
2) The old days are over. I understand you've seen the begining of the whole thing, and many ups and downs, but I think SACD has passed the stage where its future is uncertain. With more than 1,000 titles available and 20 new releases a week, I think it's time to relax and enjoy the music, rather than spend time defending it.
3) DVD-A is where SACD was (probably) a year or so ago. Why not let it grow at its own pace and let the format take its first steps? I think it's not useful to repeat that there are more titles in SACD. It's so obvious that there's no need.
4) I think you're underestimating the number of high-end players being sold. If you go in a store, you'll probably see more people in one afternoon buying > 10,000 worth of AV gear than in "pure" audio gear. The audio section of HT has improved a lot in the past few years, and all the R&D budgets as well as the end user budgets are going there.
5) Like it or not, potentially all DVD players will become DVD-A compatible, most likely in the mid- to high end of the market. There's nothing you and I can do about it, it's a trend.
6) Just because a technology is efficient and succeeds in reaching lower retail prices, doesn't mean it's crap. The price of DVD-A compatible hardware follows that of DVD players. You can get a fantastic machine today for a reasonable budget.
Take care also,
Eric
PS: I'm not sure my sentence was clear, and maybe you misunderstood me. "Fair's fair, you should let people express that they like DVD-A better just like it's fair to let it happen *** that is, expressing that they like SACD better *** on the HRH"
nobody told Kuma that she couldn't express her opinion about DVDA relative to SACD. Nobody told Kuma that her opinion was wrong. I've talked with Kuma on our chatroom for the better part of two years, so I'm somewhat familiar with what she has and what music she likes to listen to. Not intimately familiar, but I've got a clue. I questioned her findings based on her equipment, namely the Sony DVDV/SACD player that she bought six months back.
Kuma auditions a lot of gear in her home, which is great. She's had my unit in, but that was a while ago and we don't know how long she listened to it, how many discs she had and what discs she had. Short term auditory memory is vastly suspect and long term auditory memory is about as reliable as the 8-Track tape was. So sonic comparisons are iffy at best, when done over time.People wouldn't be wrong in telling me that I need to get some of the newer, more user friendly DVDAs before I dredge up my personal complaints about the format and I don't have a problem with that.
I mean, a person's got a $30k+ Merdian combo from the people who invented the format and that same person's got a $200 DVDV/SACD player from the people who invented it and they conclude that the former is better sounding to their ears, Go figure?
As far as the history lesson goes, I'm not really interested in speculating where DVDA is now, compared with SACD. They both are still being released, they both can still be bought at Best Buy, so both are viable now. There are DVDA titles that I want to get and I'll eventually do so, same as with LPs and SACDs and CDs.
As for your points 4,5, and 6? I have some mass market stuff and I have a budget SET/Horn system that I put together for about the same outlay in cash as the HT rig and the STEREO smokes it in sonics. I'm not saying that Digital hasn't gotten better in the past 10 years, but to say a $175 combo player doesn't have deficiencies is delusional.
As I said up above in another post, many people come to the digital boards with an HT backround. They've never owned the upper levels of HiFi and if they've even heard it, it's probably been at a dealer's place or a buddy's place, briefly. They don't have a context to judge what really sounds good, when all they've heard are the mass market HT systems. That's just my opinion.
It's akin to somebody being a member of the rice burner/pocket rocket car club trying to school the Ferrari club owners in the nuances of high performance cars. Sure, their cars go varoom, but it ain't the same thing.
As far as your post script goes, if you want people to be able to post comments without any follow-up from others, then you're at the wrong place. You're welcome to go over to HiRez and rebutt points made about DVDA, as long as it's in a clear and concise manner and free of personal insults, like your heearing sucks, remove the earwax, why don't 'cha?
Well, time to walk the dog.
.
I cannot respond to such long posts, anyway :)
Let's say you were right on this one
Let's move onBest
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: